On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 10:54:38PM +1100, Costello, Rob R wrote: >> From outside this all looks as though it might suffer from being a >> little too pedantic in adhering to definitional terms > >> It feels as free and open as can be, in terms of what you can see and >> change and modify > > Please note that the reason for eToys being kept out of debian "main" is > *not* that it is considered non-free. > > Debian maintains more than 20.000 packages, and eToys as so far been > judged too "odd" for Debian to maintain, eg. for patching in case of > security issues. > > Yes, I know that upstream developers of eToys, as most upstream > developers of large projects, will find it unnecessary for Debian to > take such responsibility in the first place. That Debian can simply rely > on upstream to handle bug-fixing including security issues. > > But Debian wants the ability to handle it on their own. With the help > from upstream as needd, but fundamentally have the ability to e.g > consider something worthy of fixing that upstream perhaps do not find > relevant to fix.
This is going to be a bit of an issue with Fedora as well, to be honest. The structure of eToys is very alien to what packagers are accustomed to dealing with. Copying Gavin Romig-Koch... Gavin, now that the licensing issues have been worked out, have you started working on the Fedora packages? I wonder if there are any lessons that can be shared between Debian and Fedora maintainers in this case. --g _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
